Meeting Details

Councillor Toby Hammond declared a Non-Registerable Interest in the planning application being considered at item 7 of the agenda as he was a member of the Heritage Action Zone and the Cabinet Member for Economic Development.

On the proposition of Councillor Ashdown, seconded by Councillor Hammond, it was by a unanimous vote 

RESOLVED

 
That the minutes of the meeting held on 9 January 2024 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

The Committee received report ES/1848 of the Head of Planning and Coastal 
Management which provided a summary of the status of all outstanding enforcement 
cases for East Suffolk Council where enforcement action had been sanctioned under 
delegated powers up until 25 January 2024. At that time there were 16 such cases. 
The Chair invited the Planning Development Manager to comment on the report on behalf of the Enforcement Officer.

The Planning Development Manager advised that there were no further updates to the report and the Chair invited questions from the Members.

In response to a question from Councillor Ashdown regarding the state of the A146 along to Beccles and what action was being taken, the Planning Development Manager advised that they were awaiting a review and would send an update.

There being no further questions or comments, on the proposition of Councillor Pitchers, seconded by Councillor Gee it was by a unanimous vote 

 RESOLVED

That the outstanding enforcement matters up to 25 January 2024 be noted.

The Committee received report ES/1849 of the Head of Planning and Coastal Management, which related to planning application DC/23/2454/FUL.  The application sought retrospective planning permission to retain the ground floor single storey side extension and first floor rear gable.

This application was before the Committee for determination at the request of the Head of Planning and Coastal Management, this was due to the objections received from the Ward Member, Parish Council and the neighbouring residents. There were inaccuracies with the drawing details contained in the original permission and therefore a new application was submitted to the Committee to enable consideration of the impact on the living conditions of adjacent properties.  Following consideration by Planning Committee North in January 2024, it was agreed for Members to carry out a site visit, and this occurred on the morning of 13 February 2024.

The Committee received a presentation from the Planner, who was the case officer for this application. The site’s location plan and an aerial photograph of the site was displayed, it was noted that on the east side of Bridge Road, the site had a small rear garden and pathway leading to it between number 2 Bridge Road to the north, under the first floor. Original front, side and rear elevations were shown before any extension was originally accepted. 

The Committee was shown floor plans from the first approved original application and the planner highlighted the flat roof extension and the straight line shown on those plans advising that they were now aware that was inaccurately drawn, as the line leans inwards. The proposed plans and plans that had been built out were shared with the committee, showing the impact of the building line leaning inwards towards the boundary. Photographs showing the site in context were shared with the Committee along with various elevations and the discrepancy with the calculation of the neighbour’s gable explained, highlighting the need for the retrospective planning permission. The Planner confirmed that the difference between the plans meant that the extension, as built, was 20 to 25 cm closer to the neighbour’s property than originally stated. The material considerations and key issues were summarised as loss of light, overlooking and loss of privacy and oppression and sense of overbearing. The recommendation to delegate authority to the Head of Planning and Coastal Management to approve the application was outlined to the Committee. 

The Chair invited questions to the Planner.

Councillor Ashton sought clarification on the light survey, asking if it was carried out following the building work having been done or forecasted using the plans.  The Planner confirmed that the light survey was carried out used the most up to date plans provided by the applicant, therefore they did show the neighbour’s property before the extension was built. However, looking at what the light survey suggested, the Planner added it wouldn’t have had any significant change to the result.

In response to Councillor Gee it was clarified by the Planner that the flat roof leading from the juliet balcony could not be used as a balcony area and this was part of the planning conditions.

Councillor Ewart noted the discrepancies of the neighbour’s actual property dimensions and those displayed on the plans and questioned the action taken as a Council once it was discovered.  In response, the Planner advised that they had checked the history, and they first received a complaint in October 2020 which was followed up with an email to the applicant’s agent as what was being built wasn’t in line with the plans.  It was recommended to the agent that they sent an application to the Council to rectify the works, and the agent did this whilst continuing with the building works. 

The Planner advised that the application that was submitted was for a variation of condition, however as it was determined that the original consent could be challenged for not being accurate, a full application was submitted to regularise the work.  The neighbour was asked to comment and at that time the neighbour did not think the plans were accurate.  The Council referred to the agent to resubmit with accurate details and the re-consultation occurred. In response to a question from Councillor Ewart, the Planner advised that the agent was not asked to cease building but requested to work with the Council’s planning department for a conclusion, leading to the current retrospective application being submitted. 

There being no further question for the Planner, the Chair invited Ms Mantin, who objected to the application, to address the Committee.   

Ms Mantin summarised the events that had occurred and told the Committee that the error in the plans and subsequent building works was significantly misleading and impactful, questioning why the work was not stopped once the error had been discovered.  Ms Mantin added that had accurate plans been submitted in the first place then the application would not have been approved, and that she was left with a permanently oppressive sense of being closely overshadowed and observed in the garden.  To conclude Ms Mantin asked if this was a new application where nothing had been built was it likely that it would be granted approval, if the answer was yes then there would need to be justification for going against guidance, and if no then the Committee must be clear on their decision.

The Chair invited questions to Ms Mantin.  

Councillor Pitchers sought clarification on the loss of light from the west.  Ms Mantin confirmed that it was sunlight that was lost and from 09.30am the bedroom was in shadow in the winter months.  

Ms Mantin confirmed to Councillor Ewart that the applicant first showed her the plans.  Councillor Ewart asked if she expected the extension to be in line with her property and Ms Mantin confirmed she had expected a minimal protrusion from the first-floor property as the plans showed. Ms Mantin added they had both just purchased the properties and she didn’t make any comment as she anticipated a very small protrusion. In response to Councillor Ewart, Ms Mantin confirmed that she realised the error approximately September 2023 and at that point Ms Mantin spoke to the applicant, who contacted the architect and the response to Ms Mantin was that it was being built entirely in line with the plans, but her house was wrong. 

Ms Mantin added that she had not been re-consulted when the drawings had been submitted, the application was submitted to vary the conditions of what was then an illegal development, and Ms Mantin was not consulted.  Ms Mantin told the Committee that she was notified by her District Councillor that it was going to referral panel and that she sought legal advice and submitted a solicitor’s letter that set out that the first application was illegal as the drawing was wrong and a fresh application was recommended.

Councillor Hammond asked Ms Mantin if there had been any mediation or attempt to find a solution.  Ms Mantin replied that there hadn’t been any friction as her view was that it was a planning issue and therefore up to the planners to find a way through it, adding that it had affected her individually as her grandchildren couldn’t play in the garden and reiterated that had the original drawings been accurate, she wouldn’t have had the loss of light issues.

There being no further questions from Ms Mantin, the Chair invited Philip O’Hear from Reydon Parish Council to address the Committee.

Mr O’Hear stated that this called into integrity the planning system being reliant on accurate drawings.  He added that concerns were raised in 2023 and in the Parish Council’s view the development created was overbearing with loss of light and privacy, adding the current scheme as built would be refused as it loomed over the neighbouring property and proposed that the retrospective application should be refused.

The Chair invited questions to Mr O’Hear from the Committee.  

Councillor Pitchers noted that the extra length on the extension prevented the neighbour at 2 Bridge Road from overlooking gardens to the South.  Mr O’Hear responded that the gardens were all well screened with no significant overlooking from 2 Bridge Road, however this would need further investigation before he could answer the question. 

There being no further questions for Mr O’Hear, the Chair invited the owner of Doreen’s Cottage, Mrs Reynolds, to address the Committee.

Mrs Reynolds summarised the events that had occurred and emphasised that there had been no mistake regarding the build of the upstairs bedroom extension and it had been built to the dimensions approved by the planning department. 

Mrs Reynolds told the Committee that in response to the potential light issue, they had commissioned an independent report to study and assess the day light. 

To conclude Mrs Reynolds told the Committee that this was causing them significant distress,  living for the past eighteen months with the knowledge that your neighbour wished to have part of your house pulled down.

The Chair invited questions to Mrs Reynolds from the Committee.  

Councillor Ewart questioned when Mrs Reynold first realised the plans were not to scale. Mrs Reynolds confirmed it was when she received a message from Ms Mantin and at that point she immediately got in touch with the builder and architect, who measured and confirmed it was built to plan. Councillor Ewart questioned why, once the applicants were approached by building control, they decided to proceed. Mrs Reynolds confirmed that their architect was contacted by the Planning Officer and the were made aware of the discrepancy of the drawings and the neighbour’s concerns and at that point they commissioned the light survey.  Mrs Reynolds added that if problems were shown from the survey, they would have adjusted the build accordingly.  In response to a question from Councillor Ewart, Mrs Reynolds confirmed that they didn’t continue even though what was drawn was incorrect, they were acting on the results of the light survey, and as no problems were identified they continued.

The Planning Development Manager noted that the purpose of the Committee was to review the application that was before them and decide if that complies with Policy, not what had happened before.

 Councillor Ashton sought clarification on the light survey, noting that the applicant stated that the light survey showed no impact.  The Planner confirmed that the result of the BRE light survey was within limits – 98%.

 There being no further questions for the applicant or their agent, the Chair invited Councillor Beavan, Ward Councillor, to address the Committee.

 Councillor Beavan noted that there was a mistake on this application and it was now about how it was dealt with.  The applicants could have stopped, but did not, they carried on building and commissioned a light survey.  For the integrity of the planning system, Councillor Beavan said this should have been enforced and the planning system needed to be looked at.

 The Chair invited the Committee to debate the application that was before it. 

 Councillor Ashdown told the Committee that he was unable to attend the site visit earlier that day, he had visited the surrounding area but wished to hear comments from those members who attended the site visit.

 Councillor Ashton confirmed he attended the site visit, and the building must have affected the light, particularly in winter, if it was a first application, he would be minded to oppose it.

 Councillor Pitcher, having attended the site visit, confirmed the shade that was apparent at 11am and he was very much in favour of refusing the planning application. 

 Councillor Gee found it more overpowering and overwhelming than the photos showed adding the passageway between the properties was very tiny.  Councillor Gee noted there were two mistakes made, one the incorrect measurements leading to an overbearing extension and secondly why when the issue was brought up, didn’t enforcement officers view and stop then.  Councillor Gee agreed there was no alternative other than not to approve. 

 The Planning Development Manager made a point of clarity to the Committee, noting that only in more extreme circumstances would the Council intervene to stop the development.  They could use the route of a temporary stop notice, but this wouldn’t usually be applicable to a build of this scale.  Applicants would be made aware of the risk of proceeding and seeking retrospective approval.

 The Planning Development Manager confirmed to Councillor Ashton that the build being finished should not have an impact on the decision made, adding that there could be follow up with enforcement action to have the extension knocked down should it go to appeal. The Planning Development Manager noted that the base plans that were used were not necessarily survey plans and officers expect to receive accurate plans to interpret and there has been case law that relevance of plans extends to boundaries of neighbouring properties.  The Planning Development Manager told the Committee that the extent to which the extension protrudes to the neighbour was the most important factor to consider.

Councillor Hammond considered that the loss of light may have resulted in the application not receiving permission and the applicant made a moral mistake in continuing with the build.

Councillor Ewart commented that having viewed from the two bedrooms, it felt boxed in and agreed with Councillor Beavon that there needed to be support for officers to have more powers, concluding the new administration was one of fairness and she would be voting against.

The Planning Development Manager reflecting on the comments from the members, noted that there may be the need for an additional recommendation contrary to the Officer’s recommendation.

Councillor Ashton noted the loss of light and overbearing, and Councillor Ashdown concurred. Councillor Pitchers agreed that the loss of light was significant, which the objector’s photos demonstrated, adding he did feel the extension next door pushing in when attending the site visit.

Having reflected on the discussion that had happened and the comments heard and taking into consideration Section 8.29 of the Waveney Local Plan and paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework the Chair proposed that it was recommended to refuse this planning application. The proposal was seconded by Councillor Ashdown.

There being no further debate, the Chair moved to a vote and it was unanimously 

RESOLVED

That the application be REFUSED 

The Committee received report ES/1850 of the Head of Planning and Coastal Management, which related to planning application DC/22/4241/FUL.  The application sought full planning permission for the construction of a three-storey building comprising six self-contained one-bedroom flats and two ground-floor retail units.

The application was before the Committee for determination at the request of the Head of Planning and Coastal Management as it was considered that the views of the Town Council should be discussed.

The Committee received a presentation from the Senior Planner, who was the case officer for this application. The site’s location plan and an aerial photograph of the site was displayed. The Senior Planner advised that the site was in a very prominent location in the Station Square area and it was within flood zone 3. Photographs showing the site in context were shared with the Committee along with existing and proposed elevations. The proposed site plan was shown, highlighting the site currently occupied as a car park, split by two landowners and therefore the application was only for part of the site.  The Senior Planner highlighted that the site sits within a conservation area, however the car park in its current form was a detraction from the conservation area.

The material planning considerations and key issues were summarised as principle of development, heritage and design, residential amenity, flood risk and Ecology and Habitats Regulations Assessment.  The recommendation to delegate authority to the Head of Planning and Coastal Management to approve the application was outlined to the Committee.

The Chair invited questions to the Senior Planner.

In response to Councillor Ewart’s question, the Senior Planner confirmed that the fire escape was a single staircase with two escape routes to the front and rear of the property which adhered to the building regulations.

In response to the Lowestoft Town Council objections regarding parking, the Senior Planner understood that the car park wasn’t occupied to its fullest and the development would result in only losing a small section of the car park.  The Senior Planner added there were several car parks within the town centre, and therefore did not deem inconsiderate parking to be a risk as part of the proposal.  

With regard to over development, the Senior Planner consulted the Heritage Action Team and it seemed proportionate for a town centre development. 

The Senior Planner confirmed that there was a discrepancy in the number of flats identified with the initial application, however, this had been addressed and was now correct.

The Chair invited questions to Rob Burr, the applicant’s agent.

There being no questions for the applicant's agent, the Chair invited the Committee to move into debate regarding the planning permission. 

Councillor Ashton was very supportive of the application, adding it was the type of accommodation that was required.  

Councillor Ashdown agreed that it was an excellent application providing sustainable accommodation that was needed and would encourage businesses to that end of town and recommended that the planning permission be approved as set out in the recommendation.  Councillor Pitchers seconded the proposal.  

It was by a unanimous vote

RESOLVED 

that authority to Approve with conditions was granted, subject to receipt of per-dwelling contribution toward the Suffolk (Coast) RAMS.

Conditions:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun within a period of three years beginning with the date of this permission.

Reason: In accordance with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be completed in all respects strictly in accordance with:
- Site Location and Block Plan, P03 Rev B, received 01/11/2023,
- Proposed Elevations, P05 Rev B, received 01/11/2023,
- Proposed Floorplans, P05 Rev B, received 01/11/2023,
- Flood Risk Assessment, 3061/RE/10-22/01 REVISION A, received 18/08/2023,
- Design and Access Statement, Aug 2023, received 18/08/2023,

for which permission is hereby granted or which are subsequently submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and in compliance with any conditions imposed by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt as to what has been considered and approved.

3. Details of all external facing and roofing materials shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before development commences. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 

Reason: To ensure the satisfactory external appearance of the development.

4. Details in respect of the following shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council as Local Planning Authority before the work is begun. The work shall be carried out in accordance with such approved details:

(i) Section drawings and details of windows;
(ii) Sectional drawing showing window reveals and render panel detail and relationship with frames;
(iii) Detail of brick bond, and detail of the projecting brick course appearance; 
(iv) Details of signage; and
(v) Details of rainwater goods and fascias.

Reason: In order to ensure the scheme either preserves or enhances the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

 5. The use shall not commence until the area(s) within the site shown on P04 Rev B for the storing cycles including electric infrastructure has / have been provided and thereafter the area(s) shall be retained, maintained and used for no other purposes.

Reason: To ensure that sufficient areas for vehicles to be parked are provided in accordance with Suffolk Guidance for Parking (2023) where on-street parking and or loading, unloading and manoeuvring would be detrimental to the safe use of the highway.

6. A Demolition and Construction Management Strategy shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to work commencing on site. 

The strategy shall include access and parking arrangements for contractor’s vehicles and delivery vehicles (locations and times) and a methodology for avoiding soil from the site tracking onto the highway together with a strategy for remedy of this should it occur. The strategy should also include clear location and layout plans of these facilities. The development shall only take place in accordance with the approved strategy.

Reason: In the interest of highway safety to avoid the hazard caused by mud on the highway and to ensure minimal adverse impact on the public highway during the construction phase. This is a pre-commencement condition because an approved Management Strategy must be in place at the outset of the development.

7. In the event that contamination which has not already been identified to the Local Planning Authority (LPA) is found or suspected on the site it must be reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority. Unless agreed in writing by the LPA no further development (including any construction, demolition, site clearance, removal of underground tanks and relic structures) shall take place until this condition has been complied with in its entirety.

An investigation and risk assessment must be completed in accordance with a scheme which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken by competent persons (see National Planning Policy Framework) and conform with prevailing guidance (including BS8485:2015+A1:2019, BS 10175:2011+A2:2017 and Land Contamination Risk Management) and a written report of the findings must be produced. The written report is subject to the review and confirmation in writing by the Local Planning Authority that likely risks have been identified and will be investigated accordingly.

Where remediation is necessary a detailed Remediation Strategy (RS) must be prepared, and is subject to the review and confirmation in writing by the Local Planning Authority as likely to address the risks identified. The RS must include detailed methodologies for all works to be undertaken, site management procedures, proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria. The RS must be carried out in its entirety and the Local Planning Authority must be given two weeks written notification prior to the commencement of the remedial works.

Following completion of the remediation strategy a validation report that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation must be submitted to, reviewed by and confirmed in writing by the LPA as likely to have addressed the risks identified.

Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property, and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors.

8. Construction of the scheme, hereby permitted, shall only take place between the hours of 08:00 and 18:00 Mondays to Saturdays, and between 08:00 and 13:00 Saturdays, and at no time on Sundays or bank holidays].

Reason: To protect the amenities of the surrounding area by minimising disturbance. 

9. The south facing kitchen window in flats 3 and 6 (as shown on drawing P04 B), shall be glazed with opaque glass and shall be retained in that condition, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To preserve the amenity of adjacent properties bedroom windows.

10. The development permitted by this planning permission shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) prepared by Evans Rivers and Coastal Ltd, referenced 3061/RE/10-22/01 and dated October.

The mitigation measures shall be fully implemented prior to occupation and subsequently in accordance with the timing / phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme, or within any other period as may subsequently be agreed, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To reduce the risk of flooding to the proposed development and future occupants.

11. Prior to occupation of any of the new build flats hereby permitted, details of the Flood Management Plan, including Flood Emergency Kit, and how this will be shared with all future occupiers of any of the properties shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: To ensure that occupiers of the flats are aware of the risk of flooding and are aware of the best procedures in the event of a flood

12. The premises shall not be open to customers outside of the following hours: 
07:00 to 22:00 Monday to Sunday (including bank holidays)

Reasons: To ensure the appropriate use of the site and to protect the amenities of occupiers of properties in the locality

13. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development Order) 2015 as amended, the two retail units, hereby permitted, shall only be used for purposes within Class E (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g (i)) of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended by The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2020) (or any other Order amending, revoking and re-enacting that order).

Reason: To ensure the appropriate use of the site and to protect the amenities of occupiers of properties in the locality

The Committee received report ES/1851 of the Head of Planning and Coastal Management, which related to planning application DC/23/0023/FUL.  The application sought to amend the use of 4 Hazelwood Hall Cottages to enable it to be used by both holiday makers and business tourists.

The application was before the Committee for determination at the request of the Head of Planning and Coastal Management as it was considered that the views of the Parish Council should be discussed.

The Committee received a presentation from the Principal Planner, who was the case officer for this application. The site’s location plan and an aerial photograph of the site was displayed. Photographs showing the site in context were shared with the Committee. The Principal Planner outlined the planning history of the Cottage, noting that the current permissions meant that the property could be occupied as holiday accommodation with a six week closed period.  The Principal Planner advised that the proposal was to specifically include a reference to “business tourism” in addition to holiday accommodation and to remove the six week closed period and revert back to the 56 day restriction endorsed by the Local Plan.

The Principal Planner advised that they had sought counsel advice within this application and the wider impact of it and how it might affect the holiday stock overall, particularly with the developments within Offshore Wind and Sizewell C and noted that if the term holiday is used it cannot be used for business accommodation.

The recommendation to delegate authority to the Head of Planning and Coastal Management to approve the application was outlined to the Committee.

The Chair invited questions to the Principal Planner.

Councillor Ashdown questioned how the condition would be enforced, particularly with the increase in business tourism for Sizewell, adding it would be beholden on the property owner to maintain a lettings register. The Planning Development Manager noted that with any enforcement it would depend on community awareness, monitoring and acting on it, adding it is a difficult area to enforce but useful to have premises where the criteria has been clearly set out.

Councillor Hammond asked if this was something that needed to be communicated more widely.  The Principal Planner confirmed it depends on the condition of the accommodation, normally C3 use would be adequate, adding if the condition wasn’t necessary it wouldn’t have been applied and often it was to do with restricting permanent residential occupancy. 

Councillor Hammond thanked the Principal Planner for the work in this area and the potential economic development that could occur as a result. 

There being no further questions for the Principal Planner, the Chair invited Jacquie Quinn, the applicant to address the Committee.

Jacquie Quinn told the Committee that the cottage was purchased in February 2009 as holiday let accommodation and at that time the condition was to use as holiday accommodation and be vacated for 6 weeks. Jacquie Quinn advised that number 4 was managed by a local company who have the responsibility to advertise and let as holiday accommodation.  She had found that tourists prefer Aldeburgh and by amending the condition, the unfilled slots could be used for business tourism.  Ms Quinn assured the Committee that the emphasis was placed on holiday lettings with business tourism coming as an extra.

The Chair invited questions to the applicant, Ms Quinn. 

Councillor Ashdown queried how the register of lettings would be kept. Ms Quinn advised that Aldeburgh Coastal Cottages maintain the register on her behalf for all lettings and this could be used to indicate both business and tourism lets. 

Councillor Ewart asked about the neighbouring 6 cottages and whether they were rented as holiday lets.  Ms Quinn confirmed they were and were all very happy with the proposal and may wish to do the same.

There being no further questions for the applicant, the Chair invited the Committee to debate the application.

Councillor Ashton raised concern that there was more holiday accommodation than available accommodation and that demands of Sizewell C could reduce tourism accommodation.  

The Chair raised a question about monitoring individual lettings with it being an 8 berth property, how would it be restricted.

Councillor Ewart raised concurred with Councillor Ashton regarding the potential influx for Sizewell C and potential issues regarding parking

The Principal Planner confirmed that C3 conditions around single occupancy meant that the cottage would need to be occupied as one unit of accommodation.

As this was about maintaining holiday accommodation and providing business tourism on an ad hoc basis Councillor Ashton was supportive of the proposal and recommended that the variation to planning permission be approved, Councillor Hammond seconded the proposal.  

It was by a unanimous vote

RESOLVED 

to APPROVE, subject to controlling conditions.

Conditions:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun not later than the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: This condition is imposed in accordance with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

2. The premises herein referred to shall be used for holiday letting accommodation or business tourism and for no other purpose (including any other purpose in Class C3 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987). The duration of occupation by any one person, or persons shall not exceed a period of 56 days in total in any calendar year.
The owners/operators of the unit hereby referred to shall maintain an up-to-date Register of all lettings, which shall include the names and addresses of all those persons occupying the unit during each individual letting.  The said Register shall be made available at all reasonable times to the Local Planning Authority. 

Reason: To ensure that the development is occupied only as holiday accommodation or for business tourism purposes, having regard to the tourism objectives of the Local Plan and the fact that the site is outside any area where planning permission would normally be forthcoming for permanent residential development.

The Committee received report ES/1852 of the Head of Planning and Coastal Management, which related to planning application DC/23/4456/FUL.  The application sought full planning permission for replacement windows, the removal and replacement of an existing shed in the rear garden, the removal of the existing conservatory and the removal and replacement of an oil tank.

The application was before the Committee for determination at the request of the Head of Planning and Coastal Management as it was considered that the views of the Parish Council should be considered.

The Committee received a presentation from the Assistant Planner, who was the case officer for this application. The site’s location plan and an aerial photograph of the site was displayed. Photographs showing the site in context were shared with the Committee along with existing and proposed floor plans and elevations with the only change to the floor plans being the removal of the conservatory at the rear of the building.  The Assistant Planner noted that the property was located within the Walberswick Conservation Area on the edge of the green.  The Assistant Planner advised that the replacement windows were the same style as those on the front of the building and the bike shed that was proposed for the front of the building had now been revised to the rear of the building.

The material planning considerations and key issues were summarised as design, amenity impact and heritage. The Assistant Planner noted that the amalgamation of two properties was not development and therefore did not require planning permission or form part of the planning application. The recommendation to delegate authority to the Head of Planning and Coastal Management to approve the application was outlined to the Committee.

 The Chair invited questions to the Assistant Planner.

 The Assistant Planner confirmed that whilst the amalgamation of two properties did not constitute planning permission, should they subsequently be divided this would count as a new application and permission would need to be sought.

 Councillor Pitchers could see no issues with the application and proposed that that planning permission be approved.  Councillor Ashdown seconded the proposal.

 It was by a unanimous vote

 RESOLVED

to approve subject to conditions as detailed below.

Conditions:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun within a period of three years beginning with the date of this permission.

Reason: In accordance with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in all respects strictly in accordance
with the following approved plans and documents for which permission is hereby granted:

- Drawing nos. SBDC:0921:ABC:008 and Window and Door Schedule received on 17 November 2023, SBDC:0921:ABC:007A received on 18 January 2024 and SBDC:0921:ABC:003F received on 19 January 2024.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt as to what has been considered and approved.

3. The materials and finishes shall be as indicated within the submitted application and thereafter retained as such, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority.

Reason: To ensure the satisfactory appearance of the development in the interests of visual amenity

Informatives:

1. The Local Planning Authority has assessed the proposal against all material considerations including planning policies and any comments that may have been received. The planning application has been approved in accordance with the objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework and local plan to promote the delivery of sustainable development and to approach decision taking in a positive way.